![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Found inaccuracies in the information ie. stating that the Mac Pro featured a Core 2 Duo and outdated information such as statements claiming that "current" Macs such as the "Power Mac g" which is most certainly not current, uses certain typed of RAM. Therefore I believe this article may need a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spyzy ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
I have reverted to the version with the correct formatting of units as per the manual of style and several international standards. -- Ali@gwc.org.uk
KiB is incredibly foolish- as well as pretentious- either way. I can't quite think of why anyone would have ever come up with the term "KiB," other than for reasons of safety; when it's dangerous to confused the two terms, and of course, I cannot think of any scenario which would fit that description. To be perfectly frank, I had to look up the term "KiB" when I first stumbled across its hideous presence- on this site, of course, it exists practically nowhere else. Having long understood the difference between a KB in terms of RAM, and a KB in terms of a HDD, as anyone with a brain does, I see no point in marring a page with it- it's not only ugly, it bothers the reader (and by reader, I mean me, and anyone else like me), causing him or her to lose focus on the article itself and look for information elsewhere. There really is no ambiguity; most everyone who would understand what a KB is in the first place, realizes the difference between the two uses in their various contexts. I mean, seriously, if we're going to be this ridiculous, why not come up with alternate spellings for words which are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently (like tear and tear), or better yet, the different meanings- since "run" means more than fifty different things, let's come up with fifty plus spellings. Sound good? I sure think so, gee, what a swell idea..
And by the way, it's Kbit and Mbit, not KBit and MBit; bit is lowercase, byte is uppercase. If it's never bothered anyone for the last four+ years this page has been up, why start now? Dan 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No... that's standard practice for Wikipedia, not technical sites (including Apple) which know anything about what they're doing. A space looks foolish and amateurish. "Scientific organizations," I might imagine, would perhaps use "cycles" instead of "Hz." I'm seeing more and more of this space nonsense, for whatever reason, even on the web... Dan 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Where's the "community" that decided this? This article has been "spaceless" for years, only a few people tried to change it... I also don't see any real reason to change every single existing article to this way.. after all, some articles are in US English and some are in British English.
No, articles aren't owned... which begs the question... can I start deleting everything I added? Dan 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) P.S., maybe it should be decided on a case by case basis.. by those who actually contribute?
Also some are in US English and some in British because neither is incorrect. ...Wow. Was that supposed to be reasoning? If your direct implication is that "1.6GHz" is incorrect, and that it should always be written as "1.6 GHz," you had better and go tell Apple (and by Apple, I mean virtually everyone) that they've had it wrong all along, and you've got the answers. For example..
[1]. Anyway. I still don't know what you mean by "the community," nor am I clear on when this transpired. Are you talking about Wikipedia as a whole? When it was formed? Just this page? Recently? I don't think I need to point out exemplifying that fact that just because a consensus is formed, it isn't automatically correct. I also don't know why you bother changing articles you don't have anything to do with, when they've been doing just fine the way they are.
Ok.. what about publications like MacWorld? FiringSquad? Dan 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
...Penguin could you kindly cite something other than the organization in question? I'm not really sure what SI has to do with anything, though.
P.S., as for programmers, I have yet to see a program that, when displaying component speed (GPU, CPU, RAM etc) adds a space in between. Dan 01:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok... but why have things like "256-Kbit RAM chips" been changed to 256 Kbit? This is indicative of the chips' density... am I missing something? Even Andy Hertzfeld, in the book which I got this information to put it on the page, put it this way. Incidentally, he also put it as "128K of RAM" ;-) Dan 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's memory- and more specifically, refers to the chip density used on the RAM modules in the original Macintosh. Therefore it is 2^10; memory (that is, computer RAM; flash drives often aren't) is always binary... storage (hard drives) is always listed as 10^x (except, quite often SCSI); I don't know what to call it, that's just how it is. Modules with 256-Kbit density, if there are, say, eight chips per side per module and both sides of the module are populated, obviously makes sixteen chips; 16*(1/32MB)is obviously 0.5MB (though actually the chips were soldered to the MoBo rather than on modules). Anyhow, the point is that it's usually shown as "x-Mbit density". Dan 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If no one objects within a day, i'm going to change it back to 256-Kbit... it's the same principle as 32-bit etc. Dan 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-03-24 06:58Z
06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, no... I'm not sure that's true. Could you link me to something specifically talking about bit densities? It's not a 256KB module, they're chips of 256-Kbit density...
@ 2006-03-24 18:06Z
All right, if you're sure. What about 32/64-bit then? 32-bit processor, 256-Kbit chips... ? >_< Dan 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-03-25 01:27Z
01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Fair enough. It definitely is a fuzzy area. Lol... "bitness." Nice. Dan 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-07-19 13:48Z
Sorry, the link didn't show up in the edit summary. links MoS Paul C/ T + 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh? It doesn't matter if it's already piped. For example, it was [Republican Party|Republicans]... no need to do [ |Republican]s. Dan 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a star in the article. If it's a featured article, then there should be a star. Is there any particular reason that the star is missing? -- 141.213.196.250 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've re-added macrumors.com because it is relevent, and has a high alexa ranking (2335 to be exact). If Apple does not appreciate this website in this article they can make a formal request to the Wikimedia foundation, but otherwise there is no reason not to add it.
Mike (
T
C)
19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why add them here when they've already got a full mention under Mac rumors community? Do they have particularly good info on Mac history, and for that matter is it reliable? I'd add The Mac Observer and MacInTouch: before bothering with rumor sites. Also, didn't know the were a site that apple was suing, certainly I avoid giving hits to Think Secret who seem to be more trouble than they're worth. .. dave souza, talk 22:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added some reasons why Mac advocates often criticize the attention the Mac's market share often gets in the press with links to supporting articles. I did not include arguments from Mac critics as to why market share is relevant. Someone with the time is free to go ahead so long as the arguments are properly sourced. -- Cab88 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that display glitch cited in the "Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms" section a hardware problem with the Intel iMac, a bug in some piece of software that also shows up on other machines, or a bug in, for example, a driver for the Intel iMac's video hardware that doesn't show up on other hardware?
And is it somehow more significant than display glitches on PC's running Windows, PC's running Linux+X11, PC's running Solaris+X11, PC's running FreeBSD+X11, etc. - or other bugs in OS X, for that matter? Guy Harris 06:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Never seen that in earlier models I have used: nuBus Performa 5200, iBook; neither in GNU Debian Sarge running on Performa. Occasionally, something similar can be seen while using Lotus Notes application in MS Win XP Prof. I have installed all available updating to my Intel iMac running now OS X 10.4.6. It has changed nothing. I know I'm not the only one experiencing this bug. I look ahead excited for some reaction by Apple. I can generate the defect any time quite easily while scrolling the window by rotating the small ball on the top of the mouse. - Polarit 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-04-10 12:16Z
I would definitely say it is more relevant.. you don't expect to see glitches on the Mac OS, you do, perhaps, on Windows. Dan 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you Dan, Indesign is the pagemaker replacement for OSX, you can't get pagemaker for OSX thus it has been replaced by Indesign. Or am I missing something huge and obvious and going to feel dumb?
Mike (
T
C)
20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
sprotected temporarily. please unprotect after a few days. +sj + 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since the FAC of this article, and much has happened (most notably, the Intel switch has gone forward). I must say it has improved in some respects, but some sections are just outright bad right now (in particular the last part of the "advatages..." section, and the totally useless "Litigation" section, which is basically one pretty unenlightening sentence and then another sentence about a movie). It needs a thorough trimming and a copyedit. Anyone willing to help me? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-04-24 19:08Z
By that I simply mean that they haven't offered a BTO option of upgrading the processor on any of their laptops since, if I'm remembering correctly, their Pismo G3s. I suppose that it's not all that pertinent to where it's placed; it should perhaps be put somewhere else, though you obviously feel it shouldn't be placed anywhere at all. Dan 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
vs.
It looks like both version have the date correctly formatted (I have a different formatting than the way it is written in the actual code) to me... Where do you see the problem? With the June 4 in the text or the 4 June in the footnote? Paul C/ T + 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone has access, could you give a brief synopsis of the contents of the PDF related to The unique advantages of the Macintosh (pages 87-90). This is from the "Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services" and was originally published in 1985. It should have early Apple Macintosh content.
I think the article should be titled Apple Mac, that is how they refer to their non-classic machines. (iMAC MACbook MACbook pro eMAC Power MAC) and software says MAC and iWeb pages read made on a MAC. Also, the first sentance should read "The Mac, or Macintosh, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." not "The Macintosh, or Mac, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.155.139 ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC).
Actually I personally think it should just be "Macintosh." Apple Macintosh just looks so stupid... though, Apple Mac looks worse. And it's not like there are any other Articles with the name "Macintosh"... Dan 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely 0 informations on the resolutions possible through the ages and models...
This article is crap. Shameful to the Mac. Someone (not me!) needs to take an axe to it and chop away the bloat. Much of it is more appropriate for subarticles.
@ 2006-07-08 18:18Z
Why don't you read what I've written? (1) Someone needs to chop away the bloat, (2) perhaps by moving it to subarticles. (3) Structure and flow between sections could be improved. I'm personally unwilling to invest my time and energy into this article when I know it'll succumb again to entropy in a matter of days or weeks, but if you have the time on your hands to make improvements, there's no reason you couldn't take these points to heart. No need to get defensive. Anonymous 198736 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The following paragraph seems irrelevant for the lead of this article:
"The original Macintosh operating system underwent many major revisions. However, the final version, Mac OS 9.2.2, still lacked many modern operating system features. In 2001, Apple introduced the new BSD Unix-based Mac OS X, featuring improved stability, true multitasking and multi-user capability, while supporting older “Classic” applications by providing a "Classic" compatibility layer. The current version of the Macintosh operating system is Mac OS X v10.4, which comes preinstalled in all new Macs, except for the Xserve which comes with Mac OS X Server. To complement the Macintosh, Apple has developed a series of digital media applications (collectively the iLife suite), three applications that are geared towards productivity (the iWork suite and FileMaker Pro), and software aimed at the creative professional market (Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic Pro, and Shake)."
It's talking about the history of the Mac OS, whereas the Apple Macintosh article ought to be about the computers themselves. Obviously a mention of the software is warranted, but not this much detail in the lead paragraphs, surely?
Instead, maybe a summary of the processor architectures, and a sentence or two about software? -- Baryonic Being 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've passed the article for inclusion in the release, but could we get rid of the unsourced statements in the article? I have no clue where to even begin looking, but if there's no source to a claim, you can find a source (unless it is common knowledge, or if the statement isn't even relevant, just take it out. Tito xd( ?!?) 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The mac advertisement sections seem to make Mac look like assholes. I mean, the commericals do that on their own, but I think there needs to be a large focus on anti-bias approach for articles. Actually, a LOT of this article seems to show that bias. I'd edit myself, but don't know crap about macs, sorry H2P 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If nobody objects, this page will be moved to Macintosh. The content there will be moved to Macintosh (disambiguation).-- Here T oHelp 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Apple Macintosh is not the name of the product, simply Macintosh is, maybe this should be moved to Macintosh (computer) or Macintosh series (to match with Apple II series). Thoughts? — Wackymacs 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess thta's okay. I'll move it.-- Here T oHelp 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You put down "named after the McIntosh apple.", you might want to fix that.
McIntosh is a type of apple. I've been spelling it wrong all these years! My mistake, thank you for correcting me.
i just reverted a change to "Macintosh Apple" and changed the wording if it a littie. Now it links to McIntosh again. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the XServe officially a Macintosh? Apple seemed to make a deliberate branding point at the WWDC keynote that it isn't - declaring that the Macintosh Intel transition was complete with the introduction of the Mac Pro, then introducing the XServe as a coda. For reference, Phil Schiller at the 17:38 in the WWDC keynote webcast:
"Now the Mac transition is complete. There is one other product that you don't really think of as a Mac, but it's a a really important product in our product line, and that's XServe."
Greenpeace's "Green my Apple" campaign is opposed to toxic chemicals in iPods, not just Macs. Guy Harris 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In particular, the 2005 figures should be replaced by the just-released figures from this last quarter. Thomas Ash 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Apple has a history of innovation and making bold changes that is met by a strong uptake of software upgrades.
[ . . .]
The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users"
Both of these excerpts (especially the latter) seem rather biased. Seriously, "the vigilance of Macintosh users"? This sounds somewhat like an advertisement, and little like an encyclopedia entry. I'm aware that Macintosh has very vehement fans AND detractors, but at least some impartiality is called for here.
68.0.246.81 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to note concerns on the following paragraph from "Market share and demographics" section:
By 1997, there were more than 20 million Mac users, compared to an installed base of around 340 million Windows PCs.[13][14] Statistics from late 2003 indicate that Apple had 2.06% of the desktop share in the United States, which had increased to 2.88% by Q4 2004.[15] As of July, 2006, research firms IDC and Gartner reported that Apple's market share had increased to between 4.6% and 4.8%.[16] The actual installed base of Macintosh computers is extremely hard to determine, with numbers ranging from a conservative 3%[17] to an optimistic 16%.[18]
The part that strikes me as odd is that the first sentence would indicate a share of the installed base on the order of 5.5% in 1997, while the following sentences speak to "market share" and indicate figures of less than 3%. It seems that since the return of Jobs, Apple computers have been making huge progress in market share, and that this would be reflected as an increase in the installed base. The last sentence fails to make any distinction between worldwide installed base and United States installed base. This ought to be clarified as well.
-- 71.36.251.182 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate.
Come to User:Applephreak/survey
Applephreak 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Found inaccuracies in the information ie. stating that the Mac Pro featured a Core 2 Duo and outdated information such as statements claiming that "current" Macs such as the "Power Mac g" which is most certainly not current, uses certain typed of RAM. Therefore I believe this article may need a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spyzy ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
I have reverted to the version with the correct formatting of units as per the manual of style and several international standards. -- Ali@gwc.org.uk
KiB is incredibly foolish- as well as pretentious- either way. I can't quite think of why anyone would have ever come up with the term "KiB," other than for reasons of safety; when it's dangerous to confused the two terms, and of course, I cannot think of any scenario which would fit that description. To be perfectly frank, I had to look up the term "KiB" when I first stumbled across its hideous presence- on this site, of course, it exists practically nowhere else. Having long understood the difference between a KB in terms of RAM, and a KB in terms of a HDD, as anyone with a brain does, I see no point in marring a page with it- it's not only ugly, it bothers the reader (and by reader, I mean me, and anyone else like me), causing him or her to lose focus on the article itself and look for information elsewhere. There really is no ambiguity; most everyone who would understand what a KB is in the first place, realizes the difference between the two uses in their various contexts. I mean, seriously, if we're going to be this ridiculous, why not come up with alternate spellings for words which are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently (like tear and tear), or better yet, the different meanings- since "run" means more than fifty different things, let's come up with fifty plus spellings. Sound good? I sure think so, gee, what a swell idea..
And by the way, it's Kbit and Mbit, not KBit and MBit; bit is lowercase, byte is uppercase. If it's never bothered anyone for the last four+ years this page has been up, why start now? Dan 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No... that's standard practice for Wikipedia, not technical sites (including Apple) which know anything about what they're doing. A space looks foolish and amateurish. "Scientific organizations," I might imagine, would perhaps use "cycles" instead of "Hz." I'm seeing more and more of this space nonsense, for whatever reason, even on the web... Dan 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Where's the "community" that decided this? This article has been "spaceless" for years, only a few people tried to change it... I also don't see any real reason to change every single existing article to this way.. after all, some articles are in US English and some are in British English.
No, articles aren't owned... which begs the question... can I start deleting everything I added? Dan 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) P.S., maybe it should be decided on a case by case basis.. by those who actually contribute?
Also some are in US English and some in British because neither is incorrect. ...Wow. Was that supposed to be reasoning? If your direct implication is that "1.6GHz" is incorrect, and that it should always be written as "1.6 GHz," you had better and go tell Apple (and by Apple, I mean virtually everyone) that they've had it wrong all along, and you've got the answers. For example..
[1]. Anyway. I still don't know what you mean by "the community," nor am I clear on when this transpired. Are you talking about Wikipedia as a whole? When it was formed? Just this page? Recently? I don't think I need to point out exemplifying that fact that just because a consensus is formed, it isn't automatically correct. I also don't know why you bother changing articles you don't have anything to do with, when they've been doing just fine the way they are.
Ok.. what about publications like MacWorld? FiringSquad? Dan 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
...Penguin could you kindly cite something other than the organization in question? I'm not really sure what SI has to do with anything, though.
P.S., as for programmers, I have yet to see a program that, when displaying component speed (GPU, CPU, RAM etc) adds a space in between. Dan 01:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok... but why have things like "256-Kbit RAM chips" been changed to 256 Kbit? This is indicative of the chips' density... am I missing something? Even Andy Hertzfeld, in the book which I got this information to put it on the page, put it this way. Incidentally, he also put it as "128K of RAM" ;-) Dan 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's memory- and more specifically, refers to the chip density used on the RAM modules in the original Macintosh. Therefore it is 2^10; memory (that is, computer RAM; flash drives often aren't) is always binary... storage (hard drives) is always listed as 10^x (except, quite often SCSI); I don't know what to call it, that's just how it is. Modules with 256-Kbit density, if there are, say, eight chips per side per module and both sides of the module are populated, obviously makes sixteen chips; 16*(1/32MB)is obviously 0.5MB (though actually the chips were soldered to the MoBo rather than on modules). Anyhow, the point is that it's usually shown as "x-Mbit density". Dan 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If no one objects within a day, i'm going to change it back to 256-Kbit... it's the same principle as 32-bit etc. Dan 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-03-24 06:58Z
06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, no... I'm not sure that's true. Could you link me to something specifically talking about bit densities? It's not a 256KB module, they're chips of 256-Kbit density...
@ 2006-03-24 18:06Z
All right, if you're sure. What about 32/64-bit then? 32-bit processor, 256-Kbit chips... ? >_< Dan 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-03-25 01:27Z
01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Fair enough. It definitely is a fuzzy area. Lol... "bitness." Nice. Dan 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-07-19 13:48Z
Sorry, the link didn't show up in the edit summary. links MoS Paul C/ T + 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh? It doesn't matter if it's already piped. For example, it was [Republican Party|Republicans]... no need to do [ |Republican]s. Dan 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a star in the article. If it's a featured article, then there should be a star. Is there any particular reason that the star is missing? -- 141.213.196.250 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've re-added macrumors.com because it is relevent, and has a high alexa ranking (2335 to be exact). If Apple does not appreciate this website in this article they can make a formal request to the Wikimedia foundation, but otherwise there is no reason not to add it.
Mike (
T
C)
19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why add them here when they've already got a full mention under Mac rumors community? Do they have particularly good info on Mac history, and for that matter is it reliable? I'd add The Mac Observer and MacInTouch: before bothering with rumor sites. Also, didn't know the were a site that apple was suing, certainly I avoid giving hits to Think Secret who seem to be more trouble than they're worth. .. dave souza, talk 22:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added some reasons why Mac advocates often criticize the attention the Mac's market share often gets in the press with links to supporting articles. I did not include arguments from Mac critics as to why market share is relevant. Someone with the time is free to go ahead so long as the arguments are properly sourced. -- Cab88 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that display glitch cited in the "Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms" section a hardware problem with the Intel iMac, a bug in some piece of software that also shows up on other machines, or a bug in, for example, a driver for the Intel iMac's video hardware that doesn't show up on other hardware?
And is it somehow more significant than display glitches on PC's running Windows, PC's running Linux+X11, PC's running Solaris+X11, PC's running FreeBSD+X11, etc. - or other bugs in OS X, for that matter? Guy Harris 06:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Never seen that in earlier models I have used: nuBus Performa 5200, iBook; neither in GNU Debian Sarge running on Performa. Occasionally, something similar can be seen while using Lotus Notes application in MS Win XP Prof. I have installed all available updating to my Intel iMac running now OS X 10.4.6. It has changed nothing. I know I'm not the only one experiencing this bug. I look ahead excited for some reaction by Apple. I can generate the defect any time quite easily while scrolling the window by rotating the small ball on the top of the mouse. - Polarit 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-04-10 12:16Z
I would definitely say it is more relevant.. you don't expect to see glitches on the Mac OS, you do, perhaps, on Windows. Dan 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you Dan, Indesign is the pagemaker replacement for OSX, you can't get pagemaker for OSX thus it has been replaced by Indesign. Or am I missing something huge and obvious and going to feel dumb?
Mike (
T
C)
20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
sprotected temporarily. please unprotect after a few days. +sj + 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since the FAC of this article, and much has happened (most notably, the Intel switch has gone forward). I must say it has improved in some respects, but some sections are just outright bad right now (in particular the last part of the "advatages..." section, and the totally useless "Litigation" section, which is basically one pretty unenlightening sentence and then another sentence about a movie). It needs a thorough trimming and a copyedit. Anyone willing to help me? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-04-24 19:08Z
By that I simply mean that they haven't offered a BTO option of upgrading the processor on any of their laptops since, if I'm remembering correctly, their Pismo G3s. I suppose that it's not all that pertinent to where it's placed; it should perhaps be put somewhere else, though you obviously feel it shouldn't be placed anywhere at all. Dan 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
vs.
It looks like both version have the date correctly formatted (I have a different formatting than the way it is written in the actual code) to me... Where do you see the problem? With the June 4 in the text or the 4 June in the footnote? Paul C/ T + 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone has access, could you give a brief synopsis of the contents of the PDF related to The unique advantages of the Macintosh (pages 87-90). This is from the "Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services" and was originally published in 1985. It should have early Apple Macintosh content.
I think the article should be titled Apple Mac, that is how they refer to their non-classic machines. (iMAC MACbook MACbook pro eMAC Power MAC) and software says MAC and iWeb pages read made on a MAC. Also, the first sentance should read "The Mac, or Macintosh, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." not "The Macintosh, or Mac, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.155.139 ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC).
Actually I personally think it should just be "Macintosh." Apple Macintosh just looks so stupid... though, Apple Mac looks worse. And it's not like there are any other Articles with the name "Macintosh"... Dan 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely 0 informations on the resolutions possible through the ages and models...
This article is crap. Shameful to the Mac. Someone (not me!) needs to take an axe to it and chop away the bloat. Much of it is more appropriate for subarticles.
@ 2006-07-08 18:18Z
Why don't you read what I've written? (1) Someone needs to chop away the bloat, (2) perhaps by moving it to subarticles. (3) Structure and flow between sections could be improved. I'm personally unwilling to invest my time and energy into this article when I know it'll succumb again to entropy in a matter of days or weeks, but if you have the time on your hands to make improvements, there's no reason you couldn't take these points to heart. No need to get defensive. Anonymous 198736 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The following paragraph seems irrelevant for the lead of this article:
"The original Macintosh operating system underwent many major revisions. However, the final version, Mac OS 9.2.2, still lacked many modern operating system features. In 2001, Apple introduced the new BSD Unix-based Mac OS X, featuring improved stability, true multitasking and multi-user capability, while supporting older “Classic” applications by providing a "Classic" compatibility layer. The current version of the Macintosh operating system is Mac OS X v10.4, which comes preinstalled in all new Macs, except for the Xserve which comes with Mac OS X Server. To complement the Macintosh, Apple has developed a series of digital media applications (collectively the iLife suite), three applications that are geared towards productivity (the iWork suite and FileMaker Pro), and software aimed at the creative professional market (Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic Pro, and Shake)."
It's talking about the history of the Mac OS, whereas the Apple Macintosh article ought to be about the computers themselves. Obviously a mention of the software is warranted, but not this much detail in the lead paragraphs, surely?
Instead, maybe a summary of the processor architectures, and a sentence or two about software? -- Baryonic Being 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've passed the article for inclusion in the release, but could we get rid of the unsourced statements in the article? I have no clue where to even begin looking, but if there's no source to a claim, you can find a source (unless it is common knowledge, or if the statement isn't even relevant, just take it out. Tito xd( ?!?) 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The mac advertisement sections seem to make Mac look like assholes. I mean, the commericals do that on their own, but I think there needs to be a large focus on anti-bias approach for articles. Actually, a LOT of this article seems to show that bias. I'd edit myself, but don't know crap about macs, sorry H2P 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If nobody objects, this page will be moved to Macintosh. The content there will be moved to Macintosh (disambiguation).-- Here T oHelp 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Apple Macintosh is not the name of the product, simply Macintosh is, maybe this should be moved to Macintosh (computer) or Macintosh series (to match with Apple II series). Thoughts? — Wackymacs 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess thta's okay. I'll move it.-- Here T oHelp 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You put down "named after the McIntosh apple.", you might want to fix that.
McIntosh is a type of apple. I've been spelling it wrong all these years! My mistake, thank you for correcting me.
i just reverted a change to "Macintosh Apple" and changed the wording if it a littie. Now it links to McIntosh again. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the XServe officially a Macintosh? Apple seemed to make a deliberate branding point at the WWDC keynote that it isn't - declaring that the Macintosh Intel transition was complete with the introduction of the Mac Pro, then introducing the XServe as a coda. For reference, Phil Schiller at the 17:38 in the WWDC keynote webcast:
"Now the Mac transition is complete. There is one other product that you don't really think of as a Mac, but it's a a really important product in our product line, and that's XServe."
Greenpeace's "Green my Apple" campaign is opposed to toxic chemicals in iPods, not just Macs. Guy Harris 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In particular, the 2005 figures should be replaced by the just-released figures from this last quarter. Thomas Ash 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Apple has a history of innovation and making bold changes that is met by a strong uptake of software upgrades.
[ . . .]
The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users"
Both of these excerpts (especially the latter) seem rather biased. Seriously, "the vigilance of Macintosh users"? This sounds somewhat like an advertisement, and little like an encyclopedia entry. I'm aware that Macintosh has very vehement fans AND detractors, but at least some impartiality is called for here.
68.0.246.81 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to note concerns on the following paragraph from "Market share and demographics" section:
By 1997, there were more than 20 million Mac users, compared to an installed base of around 340 million Windows PCs.[13][14] Statistics from late 2003 indicate that Apple had 2.06% of the desktop share in the United States, which had increased to 2.88% by Q4 2004.[15] As of July, 2006, research firms IDC and Gartner reported that Apple's market share had increased to between 4.6% and 4.8%.[16] The actual installed base of Macintosh computers is extremely hard to determine, with numbers ranging from a conservative 3%[17] to an optimistic 16%.[18]
The part that strikes me as odd is that the first sentence would indicate a share of the installed base on the order of 5.5% in 1997, while the following sentences speak to "market share" and indicate figures of less than 3%. It seems that since the return of Jobs, Apple computers have been making huge progress in market share, and that this would be reflected as an increase in the installed base. The last sentence fails to make any distinction between worldwide installed base and United States installed base. This ought to be clarified as well.
-- 71.36.251.182 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate.
Come to User:Applephreak/survey
Applephreak 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)